/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9732253]

Mathematics is simply a set of unfalsifiable assumptions hallucinated by long dead white men. It is nothing but an absurd feat of pompous Eurocentric circular logic.

[Anonymous No.9732256]

>>9732253
Good lord.

[Anonymous No.9732262]

What test did you fail OP

[Anonymous No.9732349]

>>9732262
iq

[Anonymous No.9732379]

>>9732253
>unfalsifiable

Fuck off with that popper shit.

[Anonymous No.9732492]

Why are these gay threads even allowed? Move this shit to /bant/.

[Anonymous No.9732521]

>circular logic

This part is true. All mathematics relies on the assumption that all objects are identical to themselves, but this assumption requires circular logic. That is, how would you prove x=x for all x without assuming that x=x for all x?

Of course, mathematicians desperately try to use the concept of "an axiom" to obfuscate this. But if you invent arbitrary axioms (i.e. assumptions that you don't need to justify) you can literally prove anything you want.

[Anonymous No.9732566]

>>9732521
High IQ post.

[Anonymous No.9732573]

>>9732253
I seriously hope that body isn't wasted on a vagina.

[Anonymous No.9732585]

>>9732521
That doesn't even need proof because it's a direct consequence of the definition of "identical".
According to Leibniz, in fact, two objects are, in fact, identical, if and only if they are the same thing. That's why we have more specific terms like "equivalent", "congruent", or "isomorphic" to indicate entities that can be considered "equal" in a certain context, but are distinct.
There is, of course, an assumption, but it's more philosophically radical than what you said. All of mathematics assumes therefore that all objects are... what they are, and not something else.

[Anonymous No.9732594]

[Anonymous No.9732615]

>>9732253
>dead white men
>Eurocentric circular logic
Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

[Anonymous No.9732620]

>>9732615
>iq
Stopped reading there.

[Anonymous No.9732627]

>>9732253
1. Why is white men things bad? 2. Not all of math is eurocentric, India, East Asia, and Persia contributed immensely and invented the foundations of most of math.
You're just a faggot who got mad because you can't factor out a 5th degree polynomial.

[Anonymous No.9732630]

>>9732379
Popper was right. Why so triggered by reason?
Upset he dismissed your sky fairy so easily?

[Anonymous No.9732634]

>>9732620
t. Brainlet

[Anonymous No.9732635]

>>9732521
Nobody takes retarded axioms seriously, so this is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.9732637]

>>9732634
Go away, /pol/tard.

[Anonymous No.9732640]

>>9732637
no

[Anonymous No.9732653]

>>9732630
>Calling God funny names
>Reasoning

Pick one.

>Popper was right

Popper was wrong on everything. He wasn't even a scientist.

[sage goes in all fields No.9732654]

>>9732630
>t. some fedora-tipper from /pol/ who read maybe two paragraphs of Popper because he shat on Marxism and pseudoscience.
read Kuhn and Feyerabend faggot, there's no such thing as a single method that leads to the obtainment of scientific knowledge

[Anonymous No.9732661]

>>9732654
and yet here we are

[Anonymous No.9732664]

Please tell me this OP isn't the same guy as
>>9726977

[Anonymous No.9732682]

>>9732654
Had no clue he did any of those things and don’t really care. Only found his statement on unfalsifiable claims relevant.

>”le fedora”
Isn’t an argument.

[Anonymous No.9732685]

>>9732653
Doesn’t need to be a scientist.
God isn’t real. Simple as that.

[Anonymous No.9732732]

Gay mods that dont apareciate brapps

[Anonymous No.9732759]

>>9732685
>Doesn’t need to be a scientist.
When you're writing about how science is done, you should know how science is actually done and not write about your presumptions on how its done like Popper did. If you want to read about it, then read what contemporary scientists to Popper like Planck, Einstein, Born, Feynman, and so on wrote about their profession. Their stuff is way more accurate and insightful.